I have a natural talent for pissing people off. And I'm glad.
The world is filled with those who deserved to get backhanded across the face and I am just the guy to do it. Politeness is an ideology, and a disease that prevents people from calling things by their real names. This tendency endears me to everyone, and as a result, I've been fired from my share of jobs, (in my younger days) got my ass kicked when I tried to fight a gang of fratfucks, and generally been tossed from various social groups. And I don't give a rat's ass. Life is too short to put up with assholes, pricks, the vain, the pompous, and the generally clueless. Fortunately, I is reel smart, got a law degree that's portable (have J.D., will travel), and generally get along very well with smart, nice, kind people, who are more numerous than the asshole kind.
One of the consequences of all this is that I have been banned from a number of blogs, and now the roll has expanded by one. Moe Lane of Obsidian Wings pulled the hilarious move of ordering me to apologize for getting heated with ObWi's resident conservatwit, Sebastian Holsclaw. Of course, ordering me to apologize is the faster way to get "Fuck you" in return.
The hilarious part is, what kind of threat is it to tell someone you're going to blog-ban them? I've been shunned? (He left the link up to my site, though, so it's an incomplete shun.) I mean, there are thousands of blogs. I am all for people following the rules of a place, but don't use it as a threat. Ban me or don't, but don't threaten me. Believe me, I have plenty of other sites to read. It's even funnier because I actually was trying to be "reasonably civil." Poor Moe's obviously not spent a lot of time in a large city.
On a related note, the number of feeds in my Bloglines account is now down under 200, and heading south fast. I am just too damn busy to fuck around reading posts about nonsense ... like how abrasive the blogger is and which blogs they've been banned from. Ahem.
Anyway, I am deleting all blogfeeds that don't syndicate the whole post unless (a) they post infrequently, (b) it's systematically easy to tell what the post is about and whether I want to read it from the excerpt, or (c) the blog is just too damn important to miss. By "systematically easy", I mean blogs that write about subjects the meat of which is encapsulable in a few words. (Tech blogs and news feeds, for example, fall into that category; politics blogs usually do not.) Blogs that only syndicate excerpts but are must-reads for me include Talking Points Memo, Political Animal, and other less-famous people I just enjoy too much to cut.
I've also excised most of the right-wing blogs I used to read. Frankly, they just were there to give me somewhere to fight. They don't post any real information or analysis that's worth reading anyway. I have saved a few, less than 6, that are honest (both with others and with themselves), and seem to have the good of the country and the world at heart. (Don't give me a load of shit about hearing from other "perspectives"; I don't need to talk to 100 stupid, crazy people to figure out what stupid, crazy people think.) Fuck 'em. I'm going to kick their asses. They don't like it? Too bad.
Bravo! I like people who don't suffer fools gladly! Life is too damned short to waste it on idiots.
Posted by: Frank | June 20, 2004 at 01:32 AM
"I'm An Asshole" ... "got a law degree"
Heh, at least it is keeping up with the stereotypes.
"what kind of threat is it to tell someone you're going to blog-ban them?"
Well, at least from IRC ppl do get very annoyed when they get banned. But I think it's partially punative and partially a way of removing ppl from the population (of commenters) who do more harm than good.
I think your argumentative style in that thread was far too much focusing on SH, rather than the subject at hand. Considering this I think that it will prolly be a good thing for ObWi, and it was justified via the ad-hom that you had thrown out.
Depending on why you comment, this may not concern you, but argueing in such a manner is just going to make it more likely that ppl will just skip your posts, like I generally do with SH's posts.
"Frankly, they just were there to give me somewhere to fight."
Interesting, I think that arguing with anybody over the internet is a waste of time, and my criterion for who to read is generally if they are good debators, and, come up with stuff good enough to change my mind.
Posted by: Factory | June 20, 2004 at 09:08 AM
I think your argumentative style in that thread was far too much focusing on SH...
Yeah, I get a tad annoyed and personal when people discuss in fake socratic detachment policy proposals that would wreck millions of (real, living) people's lives and put other on death row.
But thanks for sharing, F. Like I said, politeness is an ideology.
Posted by: Mithras | June 20, 2004 at 12:55 PM
I've just read that comment thread, and I can't believe what a wuss Moe is being. That was hardly "uncivil". Heated, yes. Attacking Holsclaw's motives and inability to answer questions without attempting to change the subject, absolutely.
Moe is incredibly quick to jump on those who are on the opposite side of the isle than he is. Holsclaw was way over the line that Moe decided to draw for you. And if he's not going to demand an apology from Herr Holsclaw, he shouldn't be imposing one on you.
And Moe, in other blog's comments, can get pretty down and dirty himself. My own run ins with the guy show that he decends pretty quickly to the ad hominem rather than actually deal with whatever actual point you're arguing about.
For the most part, I find those on the right to be pretty poor debaters. Far too emotional and unable to stick to a point. And pretty wimpy when it comes to agressive attacks. They fold and cry foul rather than just take it like the real men they claim to be.
/rant
Posted by: Hal | June 20, 2004 at 02:12 PM
Well, thanks Hal. I like Moe. He's thin-skinned and partisan, traits he can't do anything about, and he's noticed a considerable decline in participation on his blog over the past few months, so he's understandably cranky. He picked Holsclaw, so he has to defend him. (I wonder if Katherine and Edward objected at the time.) He put all that time and effort into ObWi and it's looking like a failure.
But you're right; rightwingers can't sustain an argument past categorization. Ones they put things into their neat little labeled boxes, they stop thinking. When I said it's no skin off my back not to go there, I really meant it. I'd rather sit here and lob in trackbacks (the blog version of artillery).
That's also why I have the no-holds-barred rules here; nothing to enforce, so no strain on me. Keep it short, and no spam, and people can say pretty much whatever they want. What the fuck, I call myself an asshole, so how can anyone insult me?
Posted by: Mithras | June 20, 2004 at 09:52 PM
By calling you a right wing blowhard? :)
Posted by: Hal | June 21, 2004 at 01:30 AM
Well, that would be silly, not insulting.
There are three kinds of criticism: (1) stupid, which can be ridiculed, (2) unfair, which can be ignored, and (3) fair, which I appreciate.
Posted by: Mithras | June 21, 2004 at 08:17 AM
I've also excised most of the right-wing blogs I used to read. Frankly, they just were there to give me somewhere to fight. They don't post any real information or analysis that's worth reading anyway. I have saved a few, less than 6, that are honest (both with others and with themselves), and seem to have the good of the country and the world at heart.
Did I actually make the cut, or did you just forget about me? ;-)
Posted by: Gib | June 21, 2004 at 01:45 PM
Oh, no Gib, you, Zenpundit and Oldman1787 are on my must-read list. (Don't take it amiss that I haven't been commenting - I have just been overwhelmed with work.) I also include ObWi and Totten as conservatives, although some might argue. (Half conservative?) I would also read Tacitus and Jeff Jarvis, if they got their damn feeds sorted. Any others I should visit, you think?
Posted by: Mithras | June 21, 2004 at 02:10 PM
Re: Jarvis - 9/11 Republicans don't count as actual conservatives. But read the page, it's still good. You may also want to check Karol at Spot On/Alarming News now and again. And if you haven't before, read Idle Gossip. He's on your side of the Great American Political Laff-A-Lympics, but it's a fun read. (We're the Yogi Yahooies, y'all are the Scooby Doobies, and the Really Rottens are who each side claims the other really is).
And don't feel bad about not commenting - I think it's been awhile since I've said anything over here as well. (I did mean to say something about that religious left post you had awhile back, but I forget what.)
Posted by: Gib | June 21, 2004 at 04:23 PM
You should do what you need to do Mithras, but this country is dangerously becoming polarized. I think that things aren't going well at all.
Posted by: Oldman | June 21, 2004 at 05:26 PM
"There are three kinds of criticism: (1) stupid, which can be ridiculed, (2) unfair, which can be ignored, and (3) fair, which I appreciate."
Of course in your opinion no difficult criticism ever falls under point 3.
Posted by: Joe | June 22, 2004 at 02:07 AM
I guess that last comment falls under the rubrick of (1)
Posted by: Hal | June 24, 2004 at 02:16 PM
I think it's more (2). At least Joe was on-topic.
Damn, I'm looking forward to implementing commenter registration.
Posted by: Mithras | June 24, 2004 at 02:28 PM
IP tracking is nearly as fun. You can get the city, which is almost as illuminating.
Posted by: Hal | June 24, 2004 at 06:40 PM